Why Japan Cannot Advance the Right to Disconnect — Three Structural Barriers: Legislation, Culture, and Enforcement
The right to disconnect — the right to refuse work-related contact outside working hours — has been legislated in France, Portugal, and Australia. Yet Japan shelved a planned bill for the 2026 ordinary Diet session. Against a backdrop of 1,057 occupational mental disorder compensation cases (a record high) and a work-interval adoption rate of just 5.7%, this article structurally analyzes what is blocking legislative action.
TL;DR
- The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare research group recommended drafting guidelines in January 2025, but the Takaichi administration's deregulation stance led to the bill being shelved
- A 2026 Job Research Institute survey found 63.8% of workers had received work-related contact outside working hours; of those, 48.4% responded out of a sense of obligation despite feeling dissatisfied
- A Eurofound survey found that job satisfaction was twice as high and work-life balance was reported by 92% vs. 80% of workers in firms with right-to-disconnect policies
What Is Happening
The right to refuse work-related contact outside working hours — the "Right to Disconnect" — is being legislated in countries around the world. France led the way in 2017, followed by Portugal (2022), Belgium (2023), and Australia (2024).
What has Japan done? The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's "Labour Standards Legal System Research Group" published a report in January 2025 that mentioned the right to disconnect. The report recommended that labor and management discuss internal rules on out-of-hours contact and that guideline development proceed.
However, making it a legal obligation did not happen. In December 2025, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare announced that it would shelve the submission of a Labour Standards Act amendment for the 2026 ordinary Diet session. The backdrop is Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae's shift in policy — from strengthening to relaxing working-hours regulation. With the Strategy for Growth Council taking the lead and clashing with the Ministry's regulatory-tightening agenda, the bill was withdrawn. The earliest possible submission is now the 2027 ordinary Diet session.
Meanwhile, workers' mental health continues to deteriorate.
Background and Context
The Cost of "Always On" — What the Data Shows
Compensation cases for occupational mental disorders reached 1,057 in FY2024 — the first time they exceeded 1,000 and a record high for six consecutive years. Of these, 89 were suicides or attempted suicides. The primary causes were power harassment (224 cases) and a major change in workload (119 cases).
A survey conducted in January 2026 by the Job Research Institute (328 working adults) makes the reality of out-of-hours contact visible.
- Experienced work-related contact from the employer outside working hours: 63.8%
- Of those, dissatisfied: 48.4%
- Psychology when responding: "Fulfilled an obligation" 38.1%, "Private time was eroded" 36.0%, "Experienced stress" 33.8%
- When not responding: "Became anxious about the content of the contact afterward" 38.7%
"Stress if you respond, anxiety if you don't" — this double bind illustrates, from the individual's perspective, why the right to disconnect is needed.
Is "Not Overworked" Actually True?
Japan's average annual working hours are approximately 1,627 hours (2024). This is below the OECD average (1,736 hours), and taken at face value, gives the impression that "Japanese people are not overworking."
However, this figure includes part-time workers and underrepresents reality. A more accurate indicator of long-hours working is the share of employees working 50 or more hours per week. Japan's figure is 21.9%, far exceeding the UK (12.8%), the US (11.7%), and France (7.8%).
Furthermore, only 5.7% of companies have adopted the work-interval system (which requires a minimum period between the end of one workday and the start of the next). This is far below the government's target of 15%. 18.7% of companies were not even aware the system existed.
The right to disconnect is debated against the backdrop of a structural problem: the legal framework does not function to guarantee workers' rest.
Reading the Structure
Comparing Three Overseas Models — Whether Penalties Exist Determines Effectiveness
| Country | Year | Structure | Penalty | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Japan | Not enacted | Guidelines only | None | Low |
| France | 2017 | Mandatory negotiation | None | Low |
| Portugal | 2022 | Employer obligation | Up to €10,000 fine | Med |
| Australia | 2024 | Worker's right | Up to AUD 18,780/person | High |
Eurofound 2023: Firms with a right-to-disconnect policy show 2× higher job satisfaction; work-life balance 92% vs. 80%.
The design choices of the three pioneering countries have produced large differences in effectiveness.
France (effective 2017): Companies with 50 or more employees are required to negotiate with labor and management on the conditions of use of digital tools. Even if no agreement is reached, a "charter" must be produced. However, there are no penalty provisions. Within a year of implementation, criticism emerged that "the law is too vague." On the other hand, in 2018, a court ordered Rentokil Initial to pay €60,000 to a former employee on the grounds of an "always contactable" requirement, demonstrating that judicial enforcement has worked to some degree.
Portugal (effective 2022): Companies with 10 or more employees are required to prohibit contact outside working hours. The decisive difference from France is that the rule was framed not as a "worker's right" but as an "employer's obligation." Violations are classified as "serious administrative violations" with fines of up to approximately €10,000.
Australia (effective August 2024): Workers are granted the right not to monitor, read, or respond to contact outside working hours. Violations of a Fair Work Commission order carry penalties of up to AUD 18,780 (approximately ¥1.9 million) for individuals and up to AUD 93,900 (approximately ¥9.5 million) for corporations.
A 2023 survey by Eurofound found clear differences between firms with and without right-to-disconnect policies: the share reporting "very high job satisfaction" was twice as high, and the share reporting work-life balance was 92% vs. 80%.
Three Barriers Blocking Legislation in Japan
The first barrier: A shift in political direction. The Takaichi administration's position — epitomized by its "work hard and harder" slogan — leans toward relaxing rather than strengthening working-hours regulation. The Strategy for Growth Council took the initiative and clashed with the Ministry's regulatory-tightening stance, resulting in the shelving of the bill.
The second barrier: The culture of unspoken obligation. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's own officials have acknowledged that "we cannot analyze why legislation is not advancing domestically." A cultural norm rooted in the high-growth era — "people don't find it troubling if the boundary between work and private life is blurred" — weakens the demand for formal rules. The perception that "we can contact people and get a response, so there's no problem" is inseparable from the implicit pressure that "not responding will affect your evaluation."
The third barrier: The reality of small and medium-sized enterprises. As shown by the 5.7% work-interval adoption rate, SMEs lag far behind large corporations in developing labor management systems. Even if the right to disconnect were legislated, it is uncertain whether it could be effectively implemented in SMEs burdened by highly personalized work assignments and chronic labor shortages.
The Trade-off with "Flexible Working"
The most persistent objection to the right to disconnect is the argument that "it becomes a constraint for those who prefer flexible working." Some remote workers prefer to process emails after 6 p.m. and start work later the next morning. A blanket ban on out-of-hours contact could undermine this flexibility.
But this argument requires caution. "People who can choose to work flexibly" and "people who are compelled to work flexibly" are different. When a manager sends emails at night at their discretion, the recipient can experience this as pressure to respond. The core issue is not whether out-of-hours contact is permissible, but whether there is a guarantee that not responding will not lead to adverse consequences.
This is where the design of Portugal's and Australia's systems is instructive. Both countries allow "exceptions for emergencies" — the structure is not a blanket ban but "a right to refuse in principle, with exceptions." Flexibility and protection can coexist, given the right policy design.
The 1,057 occupational mental disorder compensation cases in FY2024 are the outcome of a system that does not institutionally guarantee workers' rest. People cannot rest without legal protection. Whether to treat this fact as an "individual problem" or to address it as a "structural problem" through policy design is the question being posed.
The model Japan should adopt is not France's "obligation to negotiate, but no penalties" but something closer to Portugal's "employer obligation plus penalties." Cultural "air" cannot be changed by law. But when there is a legal guarantee that "not responding will not lead to adverse consequences," individuals gain the latitude to choose not to "read the room."
For the broader social insurance system, see "The Structure Behind the ¥1.06 Million Wall Reform"; for the context of working-hours regulation, see "The Structural Transformation of 21 Million Non-Regular Employees."
References
Report of the Labour Standards Legal System Research Group (2025)
FY2024 Status of Occupational Accident Compensation for Karoshi and Other Cases (2025)
2026 Survey on the Reality of Out-of-Hours Contact (2026)
Right to disconnect: Implementation and impact at company level (2023)
Right to Disconnect (2024)
